As the daughter of an accountant, I see nothing wrong with a "green eye shade" approach.

As W & M co-chair, he was being hit rhetorically "Why didn't you budget more money for...."

He said, "we gave them benchmarks, incl. a more open public process and said they would not get anymore money until they met the benchmarks".

Anything wrong with that approach? Sure seems better than "Cheney likes this, he said Reagan proved deficits don't matter, so why are we examining this budget?".

And don't forget, last summer Howard Dean was on a book tour or something (on CSPAN) and said although lots of people had beat up on the Blue Dogs, he could name specific ways the Blue Dogs made the health care legislation better.

This is much like a debate among Democrats in the mid- late 1980s. One side looked at individual legislation, the other side said all good people just followed what a group supported and not ask questions.

I was in the first group.

As far as "He'll be on KPOJ tomorrow morning to discuss that very topic.", I hope someone will post a summary of what he says for those who don't catch him on KPOJ (incl. the folks who might be reading this but do not get KPOJ on the radio or don't catch the particular point of the program where he appears.

I take a dim view of self proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" and "deficit hawks" and here's why: 1) Just saying "no" to spending proposals because of cost is a too-convenient cover for a) lack of competence to really understand the issue, b) laziness or lack of interest in the issue, c) corruption. 2) It is a too-convenient self-applied label that sounds "responsible" designed to appeal to the "sensible middle", an ancient and unimaginative strategy for politicians. 3) Ever notice that most of the politicians so-labeled come from poor states or constituencies? 4) When I think of a "fiscal conservative", I think of the guy who puts his cash under his mattress, scared to make an investment. I think of the CEO who watches every penny, and when he retires gets a gold watch and a nice speech from the board chairman lauding the 10 percent growth his company enjoyed under his tenure. Not said is that the main competitor, through astute investment, tripled in size. I think of rural areas governed by a low-tax low-service ethic, where economic activity has declined for decades, the bright young people move away and never return, and a region in sad and severe decline.

So when a pundit asks a political candidate "what is your economic philosophy?", and candidate A says "I'm a fiscal conservative", and candidate B says "I believe in a balanced approach to investment and taxation that will maximize economic growth for my region", my thinking is that candidate A is an idiot and will vote for candidate B.

Usually, candidate A would be a Republican and B a Democrat, but if A is a Democrat, it spells trouble.

My understanding is that he voted AGAINST the (already far too watered down) Consumer Finance Protection Act that the awesome Liz Warren (chair of TARP oversight) and other heroes have been fighting to see enacted. What exactly is fiscally conservative about leaving consumers at the mercy of the criminal banks and credit-card companies who have so beautifully scattered what is laughably called oversight amongst so many toothless agencies that are so dominated by industry hacks that we essentially have the Rand/Greenspan laissez-faire wet dream of no regulation.

Anyone who votes against consolidating regulation of consumer financial products into a single agency with real teeth is no friend to Oregon.

John, did you hear Kurt on KPOJ this morning? Voted against the financial reform bill because he thought it was too weak. Talked to DeFazio about the infrastructure bill and thought it was anemic and the stimulus money has not all been spent yet.

Voted against something they asked him about because only half of it was paid for---and with the deficit and the debt growing it is a fine line between the need for spending and the need to keep an eye on how large the debt and deficit are.

Strong politicians don't let groups think for them, so I agree with what Kari said, "Stupid labels used stupidly are, well, stupid."

IMO, the guy I heard on KPOJ this morning (who talked in almost bullet point detail) is the Kurt I voted for. Details, not just headlines/sound bites.

YMMV

George, "My understanding is that he voted AGAINST the (already far too watered down) Consumer Finance Protection Act that the awesome Liz Warren (chair of TARP oversight) and other heroes have been fighting to see enacted."

From what he said on KPOJ, Kurt likes parts of it but didn't think it was a strong enough bill; he'd talked to Barney Frank about something in it which needed to be strengthened and was told that was not possible, so he voted against a bill that passed and is thrilled esp. about the derivative section being passed.

This might be called a philosophical debate. While headlines like "Elizabeth Warren supports the bill which just passed" sound good, what I really like is someone who talks about the specific sections of the bill: what was good, what could have been stronger, etc.

Sounded to me like Kurt did that this morning on KPOJ.

They don't meet Barry Goldwater's definition of conservative. They don't meet my definition of a rebel dog. I think it's called a "marketing niche". The "boutique caucus".

This really shows how meaningless American pols render language. It has to be a pretty weird parallel universe where members of Clinton's party, that pissed away the balanced budget he bequeathed the country, can seriously call themselves fiscal conservatives. Besides the D or R or I after their name, I would like to see the amount they've voted for Iraq.

I can tell you that when invites are handed out for International Rebel Dog Day festivities (only 36 hours!) this "pack" will not be included! Of course, you only know it by the symptoms. Wednesday will be the eleventh anniversary of the House's impeaching Bill Clinton. Saturday even. That's rebel doggery. This bunch is pedantic sophistry.

How did the blue dogs vote on Iraq and Afghanistan funding or GWB tax cuts for the rich? Were these fiscally responsible votes?

I know a certain representative of mine that isn't getting my vote again in the primaries next time around...progressive record or not, being that hot and heavy to join up with the Blue Dogs is a sign that it's time for him to go. Like it or not, Schrader wants corporate cash, and lots and lots of it. He's gotten his taste of the action and wants more, and that means it's time for him to go or else we'll be stuck with our own little version of Mike Ross (Rep. Arkansas, front man for these House Blue Dogs...Google that name and make sure you have a barf bag handy) in no time.

Kurt Schrader wants to hook up with a group that will throw gobs of taxpayer cash at every war our leadership drums up for their corporate buddies, but when it comes to protecting the health of their own constituents, feels that "people want us to delay health care reform". Oh, wait, I mean "take our time". Right.

Didn't think it was a strong enough bill???

That's not what his staff told me when I called. They felt it was too broad as a whole.

Granted, there might have been PIECES that he thought weren't strong enough, but that's really disingenuous for him to say.

His amendment votes don't back up his statement.

"As a small business owner for over 30 years, and a fiscal hawk from the state of Oregon, I understand the importance of sound fiscal policy," said Rep. Schrader. "The Blue Dogs are committed to these same goals of aggressively reigning in our deficit, limiting our spending and paying down our national debt. I'm pleased to be a new member of the caucus."

We'll see how fiscally conservative these Blue Dogs are when it comes to funding the expanded debacle in Afghanistan with the gargantuan price tag. Do Blue Dogs stash their money in bottomless rat holes?

Dear Blue Dogs: You have no dominance on fiscal responsibility. How dare you shun progressives/liberals as if they are not fiscally responsible. What a bunch of bull. If you cared about fiscal responsibility, outcomes and pragmatism, you would not support the continued unjustified occupation of two countries.

Re: "boutique caucus". Very funny and far too true.

Here's another example of the difference between the DP, Blue Dog or not, and the RP:

Spurning Obama, McCain and Cantwell propose resurrecting Glass-Steagall to break up Wall Street:

McCain and Cantwell join a still small but not insignificant insurgency of chronic doubters, including former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, who say not nearly enough is being done to change Wall Street and, in particular, to address the "too big to fail" problem. The issue is one of the few in Washington that can unite the left and right sides of the political spectrum.

So who exactly are the progressives here?

Based on this example, I have moved the less-evilometer two inches to the right in favor of McCain.

I like anything about dogs!

My casual understanding is that Blue Dogs, generally, support the GOP's position on military spending (love it), social spending (hate it) and tax cuts (love 'em, especially if they favor the rich and corporations). They tend to favor business interests over consumers and the environment. They favor "market forces" of the private sector over government regulation and public works.

They are, again, based on my casual understanding, a direct attempt to win back "Reagan Democrats"--the so-called "Joe Six Pack" who was charmed by the siren song that gub'mint can't solve problems; it is the problem.

They voted for the Bush tax cuts and would oppose their repeal. They'll hopefully let them quietly expire but don't count on it.

Now, of course, Kurt may not hold all or even any of those positions.

But my question is, why in the HELL would ANYONE who even REMOTELY supports what is good for the country and OR-5 get anywhere NEAR a group that does?? How in the world can anyone on the sane side of Kevin Mannix or Ron Saxton think those positions are in the best interests of Oregonians? Of ANYBODY who isn't in the top 1/2 of 1%???

Kari, help me--how can YOU think that Kurt is right for us, if he thinks associating with the Blue Dogs is right for him?? HOW?

The district Schrader represents is at best a blue dog Democratic district. We need to help him understand how to vote in such a way as to satisfy his voters.

I guess the notion that Mr. Schrader might go to his constituents and say that, for example, he favors a really progressive policy about such-and-such issue, and then explains WHY, is just beyond the pale. No, what he really needs to do is "satisfy" the loudest mouths, the teabaggers, the cranks, the folks playing the resentment card. What he needs to do is make sure that he doesn't nothing to challenge anyone to think.

And then we get Kari Chisholm telling us that geez louise, folks, yes he's a Blue Dog, but a "progressive" one.

Excuse me while I go throw up now.

There's a reason we have a Congress full of corporate whores. But Kari Chisholm is never going to mention this. He will, however, tell me that I need to be a "realist". Her's my translation of "realist": bend over and take it.

JDW. do you live in the 5th District?

By "go to his constituents", do you mean speaking face to face in a town hall meeting format?

Have you ever been to a 5th Dist. town hall meeting? If so, in which county?

"Mr. Schrader might go to his constituents and say that, for example, he favors a really progressive policy about such-and-such issue, and then explains WHY, is just beyond the pale. " sounds like you are condescending to those constituents, that the folks in Marion County, or Clackamas County, or on the coast couldn't possibly be of blue dog persuasion, and if Kurt explained issues as you would have them explained, they'd say "sure, Kurt, we never understood the issue before now".

I've been involved with 5th Dist. elections since the district was created. It took until 1996 to elect a member of Congress from this district who was not an NRA member. No member from this district would have a 100% voting record with folks in Portland--this is more of a rural district than some people want to admit.

Something else you need to understand, esp. if you didn't hear Kurt on the KPOJ morning show recently, is that after the interview had gone on for awhile, Carl and Christine praised him for having critical thinking skills.

The idea that we elect Democrats to the House and Senate to behave the way people who are outspoken expect them to behave without question makes me wonder how you folks would have reacted to Wayne Morse.

He once said, "I will exercise an independence of judgement based on the evidence of each issue".

That attitude led him to be one of only 2 votes against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964. But my guess is that over his long career he cast votes that you might look at now and wonder why he is so well remembered by the generation alive when he was in office.

LT's post is worth reading twice, imho.

I can tell you that when invites are handed out for International Rebel Dog Day festivities (only 36 hours!) this "pack" will not be included!

Wishing a festive one to one and all!

Posted by: Dog Behaviorist Minneapolis | Dec 17, 2009 5:14:05 PM I like anything about dogs!

You know how insulting it is when we have content deleted, and link spammers slide right by?

You guys still don't get it. It's not the blue dogs or even Obama's mentor, Lieberman, who are the problems. It's YOU. Wake up and get out of the DP.

Glen Greenwald: Healthcare bill is what Obama wanted all along:

The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start -- the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry. And kudos to Russ Feingold for saying so:

"This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth," said Feingold. "I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect."

Posted by: mathematician | Dec 19, 2009 3:57:10 PM

You guys still don't get it. It's not the blue dogs or even Obama's mentor, Lieberman, who are the problems. It's YOU. Wake up and get out of the DP.

The funny thing is that the DP chair is saying we should kill the sucker and start over. Howard Dean definitely is no Lieberman lover. Apart from what Will Rodgers said about the DP, one has to give a lot of "credit" to the system in DC.

Axelrod vs. Dean tommorrow on Meet the Press tomorrow!

Proof that Democrats allow disagreement in public!

Will Rogers was right--Democrats are not "organized" in the sense that everyone must get in line.

And mathematics has no connection to the question of whether Democrats have the right to freely associate.

It goes back to that old debate--some label a certain group as being suspicious and say "how could you even speak to anyone who would belong to....?" and others look at the individual.

Well, put LT. Sympathies to maths though, as I could as well have spoken those sentiments. It's funny I was thinking about Mark Twain when I quoted Rodgers, and you mentioned the Twain line. Actually, maybe a good characterization of the DP patient is a line from Apocalypse Now, talking about Kurtz, The man is clear in his mind, but his soul is mad. Oh, yeah. He's dying, I think. He hates all this. He hates it! But the man's a...He reads poetry out loud, all right. And a voice...

"...it's become fairly obvious over the last year that in this age of Obamania and worship of politicians as celebrity deities, we haven't seen a rise in consciousness. We've seen an exponential increase in the willingness to swallow Establishment bullshit without any questions - a rise of a Nation of Sycophants, a Country of Zombies, an Idiocracy, or whatever else you want to call it...you can't hero-worship away reality."

(David Sirota, http://www.openleft.com/diary/16588/the-three-assumptions-driving-the-push-to-pass-the-insurancedrug-industry-health-bill)